BBC Focus Magazine

[Thinker]

I've gone through the steps of reigniting my love for evolution again (Damn Dawkins gets me everytime). I can't help that think that one of the reasons evolution is so often misinterpreted is the famous gradual stage picture, shown below.



When you look at it, it shows a monkey slowly turning into a human (well duh!). And what is it that evolution deniers usually say? "I didn't come from no monkey, I is what I is." They are under the impression that we just slowly turned from an ape into a human, which is obviously propostorous and untrue. But I don'y think this picture helps. It would obviously help if the belligerent fools would take the time to educate themselves in the subject first, but I just don't think the picture is helping...I still like it myself though.

[Jamie]

I guess way back all primates were descended from one species. Which would make us a monkeys cousin, really.

[Shadowwolf]

And what is it that evolution deniers usually say? "I didn't come from no monkey, I is what I is." They are under the impression that we just slowly turned from an ape into a human, which is obviously propostorous and untrue.

I think they generally leave out the monkey bit, I've only ever heard the denial that we humans or they themselves have any relation to apes, to them we just sprang forth as is essentially.

The picture does take some shortcuts but I think it is a fair and basic pictorial illustration of the progression, and seen as it is a good general explanation it matters not whether it might discomfit those who cleave to some fantasy version of human origins. If some don't like it well that's really their problem, science and education should not be in the business of amending the facts so as to not upset the sensibilities of those who have decided to take exception to reality. We did not evolve slowly from apes to humans, we are apes who just happen to be currently more evolved than the other surviving apes. That's how it is and there is no sense in sugarcoating it so some can carry on thinking humans are some sort of universal wonder beyond nature, they are wrong and they should be left in no doubt of that.

To fudge the scientific reality would be to essentially lie and if it has been done once then doubters can triumphantly wonder where else there has been fabrication. That the dilution will have been to make it more palatable to certain folks will be lost on them, they will seize upon the fabrication alone and everything they choose not to believe will be handily dismissed as just another lie from science.

[Shadowwolf]

It does amaze me how people can confuse something so simple.

But they do.

I suppose strictly speaking the diagram is only accurate if looked at backwards, that a human evolved from a protohuman which evolved from a more ape-like animal (not to say that we are not ape-like, but I think you know what I mean) etc etc and hence any extinct relatives that are not direct ancestors are not shown.

Obviously a few decades ago our evolution was viewed as linear, a slow and direct descent from ape to human.
We now kow it was just as chaotic as every other animals history appears to have been.

[Liam Sheppard]

I think this diagram would just confuse them

[Doonhamer]

We did not evolve slowly from apes to humans, we are apes who just happen to be currently more evolved than the other surviving apes.

We are not "more evolved" than other apes or any other creature. We have evolved a larger brain, but gorillas can climb trees and peel bananas with their toes better than we can, birds can fly better than we can, cows can eat grass better than we can...

[Liam Sheppard]

we are all fit for purpose and therefore have evolved just enough

[MrIsaksson]

We are not "more evolved" than other apes or any other creature. We have evolved a larger brain, but gorillas can climb trees and peel bananas with their toes better than we can, birds can fly better than we can, cows can eat grass better than we can...

I couldnt agree with you more there Doonhamer. This is to me were most people get it wrong when they think of evolution.
Which one is more evolved of coach roach and a human? Or an earth worm and human?
You try to eat rotten leaves for a few weeks and probably end up thinking that earth worms have the upper hand...
Each species evolve in their niche, the specialist becomes extremely adapted to that niche whereas the generalist can cover many but would never beat the specialist heads on in their niche.
In my reality we are all evolving; forward, backwards, sideways, constantly testing to find an advantage, some species will be here in another 5 million years others won’t. Constant "battle" between the species for survival.
The species that don’t survive doesn’t necessarily mean that they are not as evolved as the one that beat them, just happened that they betted on a niche/feature that in the end didnt pay off.....
No point being an electric car in the 15th century if there isnt a power grid.
If "you" place your bets on mango trees and become extremely specialized eating mangos and mango trees dies out due to a virus, well it doesn’t matter how perfectly evolved you were for mangos....
We humans obviously fall in the generalist area, not specialized in any particular niche, our brain is apparently smaller than our ancestors, can’t run the fastest, can’t swim the fastest.
But we can run faster than a some animals, we can swim, climb, we can eat huge number of different foods (we probably even would get some nutrition out of those rotting leaves), we can survive in a wide range of temperatures and humidities (from deserts to jungles) and so on......

[MrIsaksson]

sorry obviously meant "cockroach" nothing else

[M Paul Lloyd]

So I'm guessing that this is a bit more accurate ?

with Orrorin Tugenensis as a common ancestor?

[Doonhamer]

This version is more accurate for me...

[Shadowwolf]

We are not "more evolved" than other apes or any other creature.

Sorry I should have clarified that we are more evolved - or perhaps 'differently' would be a better term - to our advantage in the area of intelligence.

[Gabriel]

Any scientist in his right mind won't deny evolution understood as the biological phenomenon defined as: i) as long as a process, the history of change of an organization model materialized in independent unities, sequentially generated through selfreproductive stages, in which the particular defining organization of each unite appears as a modification of the previous one, constituting so, it's secuential and historical antecedent (Maturana & Varela, 1997); ii) the process of living being's transformation through generations including phenotypic changes, appearance or lost of structures, new species formation and extinction (Manriquez & Prado, 2009) and/or; iii) the principle in which every actual animal and vegetal forms have descended from simpler species by gradual modifications, that have been fixed and accumulated in consecutive generations (Villee, 1996). Nowadays we can't deny evolution (Villee, 1996), but we can, at least, doubt of darwinism ideas on natural selection, for example (Núcleo Decenio, 2006a; 2006b). Personally, I don't agree too much with Dawkins ideas, but let's thanks to him for your reenchanting with evolution and science, mr. Thinker . That's positive, a good news that you have told us. .
Literature cited
Manriquez,G.,Prado,L.(2009) Biologia 3.: Santillana.
Maturana,H.,Varela,F.(1997) De Maquinas y Seres Vivos, autopoiesis de la organización de lo vivo.: Universitaria.
Núcleo Decenio(2006a) Raíces y problemas del darwinismo: parte I. In: http://nucleodecenio.blogspot.com/2006/ ... rte-i.html, recovered on June 3rd, 2012.
Núcleo Decenio(2006b) Raíces y problemas del darwinismo: parte II. In: http://nucleodecenio.blogspot.com/2006/ ... te-ii.html, recovered on June 3rd, 2012.
Villee,C.(1996) Biologia (R. Espinoza, Trad.), 8th Ed.: McGraw-Hill.